Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
84 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, marc9000, nwr, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,017 Year: 5,129/6,534 Month: 549/794 Week: 40/135 Day: 17/23 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 46 of 226 (646297)
01-04-2012 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by saab93f
01-04-2012 4:02 AM


Re: About boats...
quote:
A local creationist suggested (in all honesty I think) that God used whirlwinds and angels to carry the animals from one place to another. Apparently that applied in both collecting and then depositing the creatures. He even tried to make jetwinds suit his way of thinking.
They (in all honesty, I think) are convinced that it's "science". Scoffers, like you, were predicted in the Bible. Remember, "science" explains exactly how Aboriginees got to Australia: Goddidit.

Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by saab93f, posted 01-04-2012 4:02 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by saab93f, posted 01-04-2012 5:02 AM Pressie has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 664 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 47 of 226 (646298)
01-04-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Pressie
01-04-2012 4:50 AM


Re: About boats...
Although this reply is veering slighly offtopic...I have never understood how cretins (xians mostly) are claiming to be morally superior to us minnows of satan, they see no problem in outright lying to suit their agenda. I believe I am not very wrong when I claim that creationism is based on ignorance and stupidity and all it produces is hypocrisy, distortion of truth and more ignorance.

This applies well in this topic as well - when no fact suits their claims then in comes distortion of known facts. Wallabies have never traveled from Australia to Turkey and back, period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Pressie, posted 01-04-2012 4:50 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 5:17 AM saab93f has taken no action
 Message 49 by Pressie, posted 01-04-2012 5:21 AM saab93f has taken no action

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 3431 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


(1)
Message 48 of 226 (646299)
01-04-2012 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by saab93f
01-04-2012 5:02 AM


Re: About boats...
quote:
Although this reply is veering slighly offtopic...I have never understood how cretins (xians mostly) are claiming to be morally superior to us minnows of satan, they see no problem in outright lying to suit their agenda. I believe I am not very wrong when I claim that creationism is based on ignorance and stupidity and all it produces is hypocrisy, distortion of truth and more ignorance.

This applies well in this topic as well - when no fact suits their claims then in comes distortion of known facts. Wallabies have never traveled from Australia to Turkey and back, period.


Thats the end of that debate then. Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry to hear that Christians make your heart burn with rage.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by saab93f, posted 01-04-2012 5:02 AM saab93f has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Pressie, posted 01-04-2012 5:53 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2012 9:17 AM Portillo has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 49 of 226 (646300)
01-04-2012 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by saab93f
01-04-2012 5:02 AM


Re: About boats...
quote:
Although this reply is veering slighly offtopic...I have never understood how cretins (xians mostly) are claiming to be morally superior to us minnows of satan,….
My experience with religious people (I used to be one, too), is different.

The one’s I have met and still meet certainly don’t think they are morally superior to me and most of them also acknowledge that they don’t get all their moral values from the Bible. I have to add that I usually refer to the very unpleasant verses in the Bible they never heard about before. They don’t have enough “knowledge” about it to try apologetics.

On the net I see all these real fundies and funnies. In real life, I don’t normally. The only fundie I listened to in my church set me off on the path of atheism.

The ones I meet just believe their Ministers, Vicars, Priests, or whatever. The Muslims I meet are exactly the same. No fundamentalism around. (Well, I work in a Scientific Institution). Even all the the Muslims I meet accept an old earth and the Theory of Evolution, too.

quote:
….they see no problem in outright ***** to suit their agenda.
All creation “scientists” have to tell porkies. The people who quote those “scientists” on the internet also have to tell porkies. That’s all they have.
quote:
I believe I am not very wrong when I claim that creationism is based on ignorance and stupidity and all it produces is hypocrisy, distortion of truth and more ignorance.
You’re 100% correct on that one. That’s all they have.
quote:
This applies well in this topic as well - when no fact suits their claims then in comes distortion of known facts. Wallabies have never traveled from Australia to Turkey and back, period.
Geography and evolution tied that Wallaby down. It doesn’t matter how many times creation “scientists” invoke wishful thinking and magic. Wishful thinking does not change facts.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed the words "***" and "lied" to tell porkies to avoid those stars.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by saab93f, posted 01-04-2012 5:02 AM saab93f has taken no action

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 50 of 226 (646301)
01-04-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Portillo
01-04-2012 5:17 AM


Re: About boats...
quote:
Thats the end of that debate then. Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry to hear that Christians make your heart burn with rage.
The debate ended a long time ago. Creationists should stop telling porkies before there can be any meaningful debate with them on anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 5:17 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 6:21 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 3431 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 51 of 226 (646302)
01-04-2012 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Pressie
01-04-2012 5:53 AM


Re: About boats...
Then they should close down the forum or at least rename it to evolution forum.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Pressie, posted 01-04-2012 5:53 AM Pressie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Larni, posted 01-04-2012 6:47 AM Portillo has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 52 of 226 (646304)
01-04-2012 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Portillo
01-04-2012 6:21 AM


Re: About boats...
Or call it Science vs Magic.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 6:21 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 6:55 AM Larni has taken no action

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 3431 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 53 of 226 (646305)
01-04-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Larni
01-04-2012 6:47 AM


Re: About boats...
Evolution vs Divine Intervention.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Larni, posted 01-04-2012 6:47 AM Larni has taken no action

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(5)
Message 54 of 226 (646316)
01-04-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Portillo
01-04-2012 5:17 AM


Public vs Scientific Controversy
Thats the end of that debate then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I can sympathise with you on that score, but the truth of the matter is that the debate amongst scientists has ended. All of the things we've touched on in this thread - evolution, common ancestry, human and animal migration, plate tectonics - they've been an accepted part of the scientific consensus for a long time now. The scientific controversy is over, bar a tiny handful of religiously motivated stuck-in-the-muds who stubbornly hang onto creationism.

The problem is that public opinion (especially in the US) hasn't caught up. Amongst the public, there are still significant numbers who favour some sort of creationism, ranging from full-on Biblical (or Koranic) literalism to theistic evolution. The position of actual scientists is often not well understood. This is compounded by the nasty habit of creationists to meddle in matters of science education.

The bottom line is that the public controversy will continue until the public finally catch up and get in line with what the experts are telling us. This forum is very much aimed at that public debate, rather than any kind of professional audience.

By the way, how do you feel about the model for marsupial evolution and migration that has been presented so far? Do you still have problems with it? If so, what is troubling you?

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 5:17 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Portillo, posted 01-11-2012 3:57 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 55 of 226 (646343)
01-04-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
01-01-2012 1:12 AM


Australian placentals
If you wish to suggest that the Australian fauna crossed a land bridge from Asia to Australia after the flood, then you have to explain (a) why no placental mammals went with them

Just a small correction, but some placentals did go to Australia. Whilst there are no big placentals knocking about, Australia has a rich collection of native rodents and bats. Collectively, they make up more than a quarter of the species of native Australian mammal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-01-2012 1:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2012 4:15 PM caffeine has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 226 (646423)
01-04-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
01-04-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Australian placentals
Just a small correction, but some placentals did go to Australia. Whilst there are no big placentals knocking about, Australia has a rich collection of native rodents and bats. Collectively, they make up more than a quarter of the species of native Australian mammal.

I was aware of the bats, but presumed that they flew, rather than crossing a land bridge; I was also aware of the rodents, but had the impression that they were all descendants of hitch-hikers, in which I now think myself to be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 01-04-2012 10:52 AM caffeine has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 226 (646958)
01-07-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
01-03-2012 11:56 PM


Re: rapid decay knock-down
Hi again NoNukes,

Enrichment means the ratio of fissile to non-fissile material.

No, enrichment means changing the ratio of fissile to non-fissile material to increase the proportion that is fissile compared to the proportion that is non-fissile.

This increases the density of the fissile material within the combined mass.

That is not right. And it is not what your reference says. First, fission is not decay. Fission in a critical or super-critical reactor is generated primarily by the absorption of thermal (slow) neutrons by fissile material. Only the tiniest amount of neutrons are produced by spontaneous fission, which might be considered similar to decay. As long as the spontaneous fission rate is non-zero, and the geometry and enrichment are correct, then induced fission can occur and will dominate.

Do you think that fission is a completely separate process from decay? That they operate under different physical laws?

Fission is just a form of decay: instead of alpha and beta particles, larger chunks are involved. What is the difference in the process between fissioning off a Helium nucleus (alpha particle) and a larger nucleus?

What causes the neutron emission?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

quote:
Neutron emission is a type of radioactive decay of atoms containing excess neutrons, in which a neutron is simply ejected from the nucleus. ...

Curiously, beta decay leaves behind an extra neutron.

quote:
Many heavy isotopes, most notably californium-252, emit neutrons among the products of a different radioactive decay process, spontaneous fission. ...

Fission is a type of decay process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission

quote:
Spontaneous fission (SF) is a form of radioactive decay characteristic of very heavy isotopes. Because the nuclear binding energy reaches a maximum at a nuclear mass greater than about 60 atomic mass units (u), spontaneous breakdown into smaller nuclei and single particles becomes possible at heavier masses. ...

As the name suggests, spontaneous fission gives much the same result as induced nuclear fission. However, like other forms of radioactive decay, it occurs due to quantum tunneling, without the atom having been struck by a neutron or other particle as in induced nuclear fission. Spontaneous fissions release neutrons as all fissions do, so if a critical mass is present, a spontaneous fission can initiate a self-sustaining chain reaction. ...


The process that results in alpha and beta decay is the same process for spontaneous breakdown into nuclei larger than a Helium nuclei (alpha particle).

You can't affect decay rates without affecting fission decay.

When you reduce the nuclear binding energy or lower the barrier for radioactive decay to occur, and reduce the decay rate, you would increase the occurrence of all forms of radioactive decay, including fission.

This means that the critical mass required to reach a sustained reaction is reduced.

As an analogy, consider that spontaneous fission, which can be likened to decay and might increase when the decay rate increases, is only the fuse for the chain reaction. It doesn't matter much how bright is the match that lights the fuse.

Here is how a chain reaction is produced in a natural or man made reactor. Some amount of spontaneous fission occurs, spontaneously producing neutrons fast neutrons. Each fission of U235, for example, produces 2.4+ fast neutrons. But only some of those neutrons in turn are slowed and cause fission. Depending on geometry, enrichment, the amount of neutron absorbing materials like carbon and hafnium, thermalizing material, and some other variables, only some of those neutrons get slowed down to thermal speed, and then engage new U235 nuclei causing fission. ...

And to complete your analogy, now consider applying a match to wet newspaper and newspaper dowsed in gasoline.

The level of enrichment needed to reach the point where the fission process becomes continuous or explosive is reduced, the amount of fissionable material to reach critical mass is reduced.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 01-03-2012 11:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2012 2:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 226 (646966)
01-07-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
01-07-2012 1:25 PM


Re: rapid decay knock-down
Zen Deist writes:

No, enrichment means changing the ratio of fissile to non-fissile material to increase the proportion that is fissile compared to the proportion that is non-fissile.

Enrichment is a noun. Enriching would have the meaning you give.

A proper usage of the word enrichment is the ratio of fissile to non-fissile material as enrichment. Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

quote:
Later US nuclear weapons usually use plutonium-239 in the primary stage, but the secondary stage which is compressed by the primary nuclear explosion often uses HEU with enrichment between 40% and 80%[6] along with the fusion fuel lithium deuteride.

I'll mention in passing that I have operated nuclear reactors for a living and that I'm not guessing about this. I apologize for my initial weak statement that suggested I only believed you are wrong. I know that you are wrong.

Fission is just a form of decay: instead of alpha and beta particles, larger chunks are involved. What is the difference in the process between fissioning off a Helium nucleus (alpha particle) and a larger nucleus?

Spontaneous fission is a form of decay. I have already acknowledged that. Induced fission is NOT a form of decay. Induced fission is caused by the absorption of a neutron by a fissile nucleus resulting in an excited nucleus and a rather speedy fission. Induced fission is required for a chain reaction. Spontaneous fission alone cannot produce a chain reaction although it may be possible to create a significant amount of energy from spontaneous fission.

In contrast, decay is not induced and has no real cause.

This means that the critical mass required to reach a sustained reaction is reduced.

No it does not mean that. Let me approach this question in a different way.

Doubling the spontaneous fission rate does NOT produce the same effect as doubling the enrichment. While in both cases you will double the number of source (spontaneous) neutrons generated in a given mass, doubling the spontaneous fission rate does not double the number of U235 targets for those neutrons. On the other hand doubling the enrichment will quite obviously have that effect in addition to doubling the number of neutrons flying around.

When the spontaneous fission rate is doubled, approximately the same percentage of source neutrons will cause induced fission as before. As long as that percentage remains below 42%, no chain reaction can be produced. That means that the mass is still not critical.

Curiously, beta decay leaves behind an extra neutron.

A neutron which remains in the nucleus in most cases. There are some cases where a free neutron can be produced from a beta decay product (neutron precursors) produced by a fission.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Edit discussion of neutron precursors.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 9:13 PM NoNukes has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 788 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 59 of 226 (647019)
01-07-2012 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
01-02-2012 10:20 PM


Re: science vs creationism
Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes.

wikipedia writes:

The decay energy is the energy released by a radioactive decay.

If the decay energy is the energy releassed by a "single" radioactive decay, why would the timing of those decays have any effect of the energy of any one decay?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 10:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2012 12:05 AM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 226 (647048)
01-07-2012 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
01-07-2012 2:59 PM


Re: rapid decay knock-down
Hi NoNukes,

First off, I am aware that you have worked in a nuclear reactor.

That does not mean that you have worked through the question of what you need to do to increase the rate of decay, and then determined how that affects the rest of the (atomic) world.

Enrichment is a noun. Enriching would have the meaning you give.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enrichment

quote:
en•rich•ment - noun
1. an act of enriching.
2. the state of being enriched.
3. something that enriches: the enrichments of education and travel.

Fine. I was using action while you are using state, but we can use enriching for clarity to reduce confusion. The point is the same.

Spontaneous fission is a form of decay. I have already acknowledged that. Induced fission is NOT a form of decay. Induced fission is caused by the absorption of a neutron by a fissile nucleus resulting in an excited nucleus and a rather speedy fission. Induced fission is required for a chain reaction. Spontaneous fission alone cannot produce a chain reaction although it may be possible to create a significant amount of energy from spontaneous fission.

Curiously, the natural reactors at Oklo were started by spontaneous fission. The relative proportions (natural state of enrichment) today do not allow this, but they did in the past:

http://oklo.curtin.edu.au/what.cfm

quote:
Uranium Isotopes Today
For every 100,000 atoms of U only 720 are 235U atoms. Since 235U is the isotope of U that is easiest to fission most man made reactors require ‘enriched U’ – U in which the relative amount of 235U is increased to about 3000 atoms per 100,000 atoms (i.e. 3%).

Uranium Isotopes 2000 million years ago
At Oklo, as on the rest of the earth and solar system, 2000 million years ago the relative abundance of U-235 was 3000 atoms per 100,000 atoms.

This is one of the major reasons why nuclear fission started.

Natural fission reactors cannot form today because there is insufficient 235U in natural U.


The natural level of enrichment in the ore 2000 million years ago was the same as your man-made enriched uranium used in nuclear reactors today.

The processes that are documented in the evidence left at Oklo show that they underwent fission similar to reactors today, with no change of the physical laws governing the behavior of radioactive elements from then to now.

Doubling the spontaneous fission rate does NOT produce the same effect as doubling the enrichment. While in both cases you will double the number of source (spontaneous) neutrons generated in a given mass, doubling the spontaneous fission rate does not double the number of U235 targets for those neutrons. On the other hand doubling the enrichment will quite obviously have that effect in addition to doubling the number of neutrons flying around.

It does not double the number of targets, but it does double the number of bullets, thus doubling the exposure of the targets, with the effect being the same as doubling the enrichment in material today. This would also be akin to providing a neutron reflector around the material.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Fission.html

quote:
The stability of an atomic nucleus is determined by its binding energy - the amount of energy required to disrupt it. Any time a neutron or proton is captured by an atomic nucleus, the nucleus rearranges its structure. If energy is released by the rearrangement, the binding energy decreases. If energy is absorbed, the binding energy increases.

The isotopes important for the large scale release of energy through fission are uranium-235 (U-235), plutonium-239 (Pu-239), and uranium- 233 (U-233). The binding energy of these three isotopes is so low that when a neutron is captured, the energy released by rearrangement exceeds it. The nucleus is then no longer stable and must either shed the excess energy, or split into two pieces. Since fission occurs regardless of the neutron's kinetic energy (i.e. no extra energy from its motion is needed to disrupt the nucleus), this is called "slow fission".

By contrast, when the abundant isotope uranium-238 captures a neutron it still has a binding energy deficit of 1 MeV after internal rearrangement. If it captures a neutron with a kinetic energy exceeding 1 MeV, then this energy plus the energy released by rearrangement can over come the binding energy and cause fission. Since a fast neutron with a large kinetic energy is required, this is called "fast fission".


In nuclear reactions today some neutrons are lost from the chain reaction due to neutron capture without fission, due to the binding energy level of the various isotopes.

Curiously, the binding energy also affects the decay rate, and increased decay rate means that the effective binding energy of the atom\isotope is reduced.

With lower binding energy, neutron capture is more likely to exceed the (lower) binding energy limit for fission to occur, with the result that induced fission would occur more often: less critical mass is needed.

In addition, the numbers of neutrons resulting from fission would also increase:

quote:
(ibid) The nuclei of these isotopes are just barely stable and the addition of a small amount of energy to one by an outside neutron will cause it to promptly split into two roughly equal pieces, ... and several new neutrons (an average of 2.52 for U-235, and 2.95 for Pu-239).

Amusingly, neutrons exist in integer quantities, not fractions. There is variation in the number of neutrons produced from individual events.

The number of neutrons produced is also related to the binding energy that controls decay rates. Faster decay = more neutrons produced by induced fission = less critical mass.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2012 2:59 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 01-08-2012 1:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022